FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Trident, warships et al
Trident, warships et al
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
So... The brand new aircraft carrier is heading back from sea trials to dry dock for fundimental repairs and a repaint of failed antifouling paint and a think tank from the US has concluded the whole lit, fighter jets included, are at risk from sinking from £45k missiles.
Trident has already been seen to be fit only for a bygone age and the US has hailed them several years ago as 'redundant'.
So...who makes these funding choices? Someone with self-interest, their head in the sand or someone so out of touch with the real world that it's not funny?
I can't see a good outcome to this tbh |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
the carrier was a thinly veiled attempt at looking capable by 'call me dave' ca-moron when he was the new boy in charge .... so it's safe to say he carry's the can on that one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"the carrier was a thinly veiled attempt at looking capable by 'call me dave' ca-moron when he was the new boy in charge .... so it's safe to say he carry's the can on that one."
The two carriers were actually ordered by the Labour government in 2007! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the carrier was a thinly veiled attempt at looking capable by 'call me dave' ca-moron when he was the new boy in charge .... so it's safe to say he carry's the can on that one.
The two carriers were actually ordered by the Labour government in 2007!"
the specification stage was overseen by dave |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"the carrier was a thinly veiled attempt at looking capable by 'call me dave' ca-moron when he was the new boy in charge .... so it's safe to say he carry's the can on that one.
The two carriers were actually ordered by the Labour government in 2007!
the specification stage was overseen by dave "
Again, not true. David Cameron actually wanted to cancel the project but was rebuffed by the Royal Navy and the Defence Secretary. Contractual obligations meant that any cost savings for cancelling, would have been small, compared to safe guarding 8000 plus jobs, mainly in Labour heartlands.
To my knowledge, David Cameron isn't, and has never been, a naval Design Engineer, senior or otherwise.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"
the specification stage was overseen by dave
fact "
You are short on facts. You are aware that the design of these ships was started in 1999. And you need a design to obtain a cost. And then when you have a cost, then you put a case for ordering. And then in 2007, an order was placed for for two carriers at a cost of £4.85 billion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
the specification stage was overseen by dave
fact
You are short on facts. You are aware that the design of these ships was started in 1999. And you need a design to obtain a cost. And then when you have a cost, then you put a case for ordering. And then in 2007, an order was placed for for two carriers at a cost of £4.85 billion."
you've been told about stalking me before .... stop stalking me ... it's weird |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"
the specification stage was overseen by dave
fact
You are short on facts. You are aware that the design of these ships was started in 1999. And you need a design to obtain a cost. And then when you have a cost, then you put a case for ordering. And then in 2007, an order was placed for for two carriers at a cost of £4.85 billion.
you've been told about stalking me before .... stop stalking me ... it's weird"
And as I've told you before...opinions aren't facts! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
the specification stage was overseen by dave
fact
You are short on facts. You are aware that the design of these ships was started in 1999. And you need a design to obtain a cost. And then when you have a cost, then you put a case for ordering. And then in 2007, an order was placed for for two carriers at a cost of £4.85 billion.
you've been told about stalking me before .... stop stalking me ... it's weird
And as I've told you before...opinions aren't facts!"
weird  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"So... The brand new aircraft carrier is heading back from sea trials to dry dock for fundimental repairs and a repaint of failed antifouling paint and a think tank from the US has concluded the whole lit, fighter jets included, are at risk from sinking from £45k missiles.
Trident has already been seen to be fit only for a bygone age and the US has hailed them several years ago as 'redundant'.
So...who makes these funding choices? Someone with self-interest, their head in the sand or someone so out of touch with the real world that it's not funny?
I can't see a good outcome to this tbh"
a brand new ship with brand new systems and technowledgey needs to come back into port to have a few problems rectified pretty standard practice you do realise OP that the ship hasnt been handed over yet and is still under the care and ownership of the builders ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
It's not so much the problems associated with the carrier are things that failed eg,the paint not adhering, it's that the think tank deems the carrier obsolete before it's even finished but worse than that, it and every thing on it could be wiped out so easily by more modern, cheap weapons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"It's not so much the problems associated with the carrier are things that failed eg,the paint not adhering, it's that the think tank deems the carrier obsolete before it's even finished but worse than that, it and every thing on it could be wiped out so easily by more modern, cheap weapons."
That's asymmetric warfare for you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That's asymmetric warfare for you. "
The thing about asymmetric warfare is it is limited in scope and in reality can not be used to project power beyond a local and insignificant level if conventional power (which can be projected locally, regionally and globally) is fully utilised. The fact is the vast majority of our civilisation does not have the will to do this and as a result organisations like IS are able to use asymmetric warfare to build a base from which to transition to conventional warfare and conventional forces are required to fight that sort of was.
Surprisingly I found myself agreeing with the Donald in the question he possed in Poland prior to the G20 meeting. The question is have we the will to do what is required to survive ? Unfortunately I do not share donny's confidence in our fortitude. I believe we are living in the equivalent stage the civilisation cycle as that seen during the fall of Rome. In my opinion a new dark ages is just round the corner. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The entire idea, commissioning, design, ordering and everything was done under labour.
A cock up from start to finish.
Cameron wished to scrap the idea....but it was too late and the cost of cancellation would have meant minuscule overall savings....together with the loss of thousands of jobs directl, and potentially tens of thousands in supply chain etc.
His hands were tied before he even got into office! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Calling bullshit on this!"
Wrong again...
Call me (pigfucker)Dave is the man who cancelled the order for jump jets and ordered the fitting of steam catapult launch and arrest systems to save money.
Of course the fact that this (and it's sister ship) are not actually aircraft carriers but through deck cruisers and therefore patently unsuitable for use as catapult launch platforms will lead to many more problems when it comes time to commission them. I would not be surprised to see them go the same way as the Nimrods (funnily enough another Tory money saving exercise form inception to destruction that cost billions for nothing). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"That's asymmetric warfare for you.
The thing about asymmetric warfare is it is limited in scope and in reality can not be used to project power beyond a local and insignificant level if conventional power (which can be projected locally, regionally and globally) is fully utilised. The fact is the vast majority of our civilisation does not have the will to do this and as a result organisations like IS are able to use asymmetric warfare to build a base from which to transition to conventional warfare and conventional forces are required to fight that sort of was.
Surprisingly I found myself agreeing with the Donald in the question he possed in Poland prior to the G20 meeting. The question is have we the will to do what is required to survive ? Unfortunately I do not share donny's confidence in our fortitude. I believe we are living in the equivalent stage the civilisation cycle as that seen during the fall of Rome. In my opinion a new dark ages is just round the corner."
True, lets also throw in the law of atrophy then. It's always easier to break something than it is to make something. A billion pound aircraft carrier can be taken out by cheap missiles, bird strikes can take down a plane, a special forces solider can be killed by a single bullet fired by a child soldier etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"Calling bullshit on this!
Wrong again...
Call me (pigfucker)Dave is the man who cancelled the order for jump jets and ordered the fitting of steam catapult launch and arrest systems to save money.
Of course the fact that this (and it's sister ship) are not actually aircraft carriers but through deck cruisers and therefore patently unsuitable for use as catapult launch platforms will lead to many more problems when it comes time to commission them. I would not be surprised to see them go the same way as the Nimrods (funnily enough another Tory money saving exercise form inception to destruction that cost billions for nothing)."
The new carriers would need a catapult system to operate the F35C variant aircraft. The spiralling costs of both catapult system and variant of aircraft, along with continued production problems, meant that that option was abandoned and F35B aircraft are to be used instead.
These have short take off and landing capability and the Royal Navy has already been conducting successful tests with the first deliveries.
The US has been testing an electro-magnetic catapult system for their future carriers, although with mixed results.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Calling bullshit on this!
Wrong again...
Call me (pigfucker)Dave is the man who cancelled the order for jump jets and ordered the fitting of steam catapult launch and arrest systems to save money.
Of course the fact that this (and it's sister ship) are not actually aircraft carriers but through deck cruisers and therefore patently unsuitable for use as catapult launch platforms will lead to many more problems when it comes time to commission them. I would not be surprised to see them go the same way as the Nimrods (funnily enough another Tory money saving exercise form inception to destruction that cost billions for nothing).
The new carriers would need a catapult system to operate the F35C variant aircraft. The spiralling costs of both catapult system and variant of aircraft, along with continued production problems, meant that that option was abandoned and F35B aircraft are to be used instead.
These have short take off and landing capability and the Royal Navy has already been conducting successful tests with the first deliveries.
The US has been testing an electro-magnetic catapult system for their future carriers, although with mixed results.
"
Didn’t we originally plan for the B variant, then change our minds to the C, then back to the B again? Thats what fucks up procurement.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
the specification stage was overseen by dave
fact
You are short on facts. You are aware that the design of these ships was started in 1999. And you need a design to obtain a cost. And then when you have a cost, then you put a case for ordering. And then in 2007, an order was placed for for two carriers at a cost of £4.85 billion."
The Tories changed the plans from a catapult system to just take off then they could not make it work so they are back to catapults and arrest gear.
The spec changes cost a small fortune
. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
Both carriers will be completed as originally planned, in a Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) configuration, deploying the Lockheed Martin F-35B. Following the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, the British government had intended to purchase the F-35C carrier version of this aircraft, and adopted plans for Prince of Wales to be built to aCatapult Assisted Take Off Barrier Arrested Recovery(CATOBAR) configuration. After the projected costs of the CATOBAR system rose to around twice the original estimate, the government announced that it would revert to the original design on 10 May 2012.
://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"They wouldn't need catapult systems the jets will be short take off vertical landing almost like the harriers so no need for complicated systems "
But less range and capable of carrying fewer arms. Everything is a trade off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
A carrier can get within about 15 miles of any country with a coastline that much range is not needed by the navy any long distance bombing is done by the airforce |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Aircraft carrier issues aside, i read a post on here about f35s? Not only being not british, they also appear to be shite.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/242816-f-35-program-trouble-full-flight-tests-delayed-least-2018 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why can't we build our own aircraft? "
Because successive governments fucked up our jet industry and we got well and truly shafted by the Americans.
Watch 'Jet. When Britain Ruled the Skies' for the full sad story.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why can't we build our own aircraft?
We should be !!!"
That's like suggesting we should be able to put a man on the moon or build our own space station.
We have neither the finances or the expertise to commission these kind of projects.
I think you're still living in the golden age of the british empire.
We're not important any more and the little clout we had is quickly disappearing thanks to brexit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I mentioned Trident, too, which has recently been refunded, I think. When the US military think tanks are including that in their 'defunct weaponry', even though it's their weapon and they have the ultimate say in its use (due to on board override systems), why are we- the UK- continuing with it? Someone please tell me we also have something that is suited to modern warfare ...or have we sold it all to Saudi Arabia?
I hate warfare- it makes my skin crawl just writing this.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why can't we build our own aircraft? "
Where it comes to jump jet technology because we gave in to the Yanks in return for them agreeing to use Rolls Royce engines in the f35s. Of course as soon as the patents and copyrights had been signed over the yanks decided that because of US national security the engines would have to be made in the USA by a US company so unless RR opened plants in the USA to build the both the parts and engines then they would be powered by Pratt and Whitney units. Of course RR complied so now the yanks have got their hands on all of RR's fan blade manufacturing secrets too...
Of course the US has form on doing this. They did it with chobham armour in the 70's and with atomic secrets in December 41/January 42 and the RR Merlin engine and Whittles designs for a turbojet engine (which the uncle sam gave to Pratt's free of charge to kick start their aviation engine business)...
Seems the British government (regardless of colour) are good at giving away British industrial secrets to the yanks whenever they want them for nothing in return. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I hate warfare- it makes my skin crawl just writing this.
"
You may hate warfare, but not as much as those who have experienced it...
And here is one of those horribly counter intuitive truths that I tend to be continually repeating.
If you want to avoid war you have to have well trained, fully equipped fully prepared armed forces strong enough and numerous enough to be able to project so much power anywhere globally that any potential hostile power is deterred from attacking you. Of course you also need politicians who are unwilling to use the nationalist fervor generated by combat victories to bolster their hold on power and for this you need politicians who have experienced war firsthand rather than vicariously through visits to visits to the sanitised aftermaths of battle for photo opportunities as they are 'briefed by commanders in the field' and photocalls 'with the troops' and our 'brave boys and girls' in shows of false patriotism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why can't we build our own aircraft?
Because successive governments fucked up our jet industry and we got well and truly shafted by the Americans.
Watch 'Jet. When Britain Ruled the Skies' for the full sad story.
"
Good documentary.. Thanks. I expect this is one reason why the f35 is a turkey. No innovative British companies to supply innovative designs for them.
were not equal partners to uncle sam. I came to this conclusion years ago.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
We have a a british company building the next generation jet engine.The sabre engine and the it is an engine that will take you to space .The goverment put 60 million into it.The Americans are interested .We should build it and sell it to the world .Uncle sam will probably buy the company. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We have a a british company building the next generation jet engine.The sabre engine and the it is an engine that will take you to space .The goverment put 60 million into it.The Americans are interested .We should build it and sell it to the world .Uncle sam will probably buy the company."
Why should they buy it when they can bribe a few greedy politicians and get it for fuck all? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We have a a british company building the next generation jet engine.The sabre engine and the it is an engine that will take you to space .The goverment put 60 million into it.The Americans are interested .We should build it and sell it to the world .Uncle sam will probably buy the company.
Why should they buy it when they can bribe a few greedy politicians and get it for fuck all?"
Yep., that sounds right  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why can't we build our own aircraft?
We should be !!!
That's like suggesting we should be able to put a man on the moon or build our own space station.
We have neither the finances or the expertise to commission these kind of projects.
I think you're still living in the golden age of the british empire.
We're not important any more and the little clout we had is quickly disappearing thanks to brexit. "
I don't care if we are important or not !
We have the skills the people , just do it !!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why can't we build our own aircraft?
We should be !!!
That's like suggesting we should be able to put a man on the moon or build our own space station.
We have neither the finances or the expertise to commission these kind of projects.
I think you're still living in the golden age of the british empire.
We're not important any more and the little clout we had is quickly disappearing thanks to brexit. I don't care if we are important or not !
We have the skills the people , just do it !!!"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I mentioned Trident, too, which has recently been refunded, I think. When the US military think tanks are including that in their 'defunct weaponry', even though it's their weapon and they have the ultimate say in its use (due to on board override systems), why are we- the UK- continuing with it? Someone please tell me we also have something that is suited to modern warfare ...or have we sold it all to Saudi Arabia?
I hate warfare- it makes my skin crawl just writing this.
"
Trident isn't defunct, or under sole US control. The F35 is a great plane, but I'm not convinced it was the best plane. The problem with military procurement, of nearly all countries, is that they are very bad at predicting what the next war will be.
Trident is good as it is a nuclear deterrent. It is highly unlikely that we will ever use it, and I hope we never have to, but it's important that we have it.
I would say one of the main things with the F35 is do we really need a stealth/low observable radar signature aircraft? If we look at recent wars in iraq, Afghan, Syria, Libya etc. We need good air to ground attack aircraft, and close air support. You want an aircraft that is very good at air to ground, can hold a wide variety and ammount of ordinance, and one that can stay on station for a long time. Having a "stealth" aircraft its hard to achieve this with only internal fuel tanks and weapons bays. I would say thr lastest versions of the F/A-18 are great planes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think you are wrong (up to a point) with military procurement.
There is a real problem in the military machine with High Command and General Staff (for the most part) refusing to adopt new tactics, rigging exercises to prove themselves correct, continually preparing to fight the last war and refusing to admit there is a problem when they are confronted with the fact that the tactics that have refused to adopt are beating the tactic they are employing in a real war. However this does not affect military (or any government and many private companies) procurement aspirations, there the problem is firmly embedded in politicians, bureaucrats and bean counters who are always looking for any way to save a penny regardless of potential consequences. Christ at the moment we are watching a most horrific non military example playing out in front of us with Grenville Tower. A council leader who resigned because of his "perceived" culpability. However the fact is he presided over changes to the cladding to save £230,000 while at the same time giving all council taxpayers who had paid their full tax bill a one off refund of £100. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
My understanding of Trident is that it is an US missile, bought by us, for our use but with US having ultimate control over when and which direction it's fired. They return to the US for refurbishment on a revolving basis. If the US says they are no longer fit for purpose- and they make them-, why spend billions on more? Why not design something more suitable?
Willwill, your post puts into words what I'd feared, that the spirit of those in charge over the military has not altered since the days of cannon fodder and beyond. I despair.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"My understanding of Trident is that it is an US missile, bought by us, for our use but with US having ultimate control over when and which direction it's fired. They return to the US for refurbishment on a revolving basis. If the US says they are no longer fit for purpose- and they make them-, why spend billions on more? Why not design something more suitable?
Willwill, your post puts into words what I'd feared, that the spirit of those in charge over the military has not altered since the days of cannon fodder and beyond. I despair.
"
You're incorrect in your understanding of how it works. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My understanding of Trident is that it is an US missile, bought by us, for our use but with US having ultimate control over when and which direction it's fired. They return to the US for refurbishment on a revolving basis. If the US says they are no longer fit for purpose- and they make them-, why spend billions on more? Why not design something more suitable?
Willwill, your post puts into words what I'd feared, that the spirit of those in charge over the military has not altered since the days of cannon fodder and beyond. I despair.
"
You really should apply a little logic to your beliefs about Trident missiles. Firstly although like any weapon system they could be used in a first strike roll, they are designed as a failsafe retaliatory weapon. If as you believe they are ultimately controlled from the USA then a successful strike at either the control centre, the communications uplinks or the satellites would render the weapon useless. Worse still successfully hacking into the system would give total control of the weapons to whoever breached the security systems. So clearly that is not the case. The weapons have multiple layers of guidance including their own internal guidance systems. Admittedly if the USA turns off the satellite guidance system they control the missiles or more correctly the MIRV's ( multiple independent reentry vehicles) in each missile will be less accurate. But if it comes to nuclear war a thermonuclear detonation in the upper atmosphere within 50 miles of its target will knock out every non hardened electrical system in the target area, and considering how many missiles a single boat carries I doubt that even a country as large as China could survive the devastation. As for where the missiles and warheads are stored and serviced if you look at google maps and find Faslane, then zoom out a little so you can see Loch Long, look for Coulport and take a look at how big it is... That is where our missiles and warheads are stored and serviced, and that is where they are loaded and unloaded from our Trident boats.
Warfare is a very Dawinesk affair, but surviving comes at a cost. That is the truth of it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I know that. That's why they aren't the deterrent they were.
They are serviced or recommisioned in the US- at any one time I'm told there is one there. It's part of the contract with the US |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I know that. That's why they aren't the deterrent they were.
They are serviced or recommisioned in the US- at any one time I'm told there is one there. It's part of the contract with the US"
Why do you think they are not a deterrent? What do you think is more strategically effective that a submarine based ICBMs? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I know that. That's why they aren't the deterrent they were.
They are serviced or recommisioned in the US- at any one time I'm told there is one there. It's part of the contract with the US"
There is a big difference between serviced and recommissioned, and yes the missiles are recommissioned in the USA in the same way as the warheads are refurbished and upgraded in Aldermaston. But the servicing of both take place in coulston. I understand that you have read RN/UKG/USN public relations material, but it is clear you have never been on a CAD or a military munitions storage facility (I have), they only have workshops where they service munitions. Where munitions are only stored there are only storage bunkers. Because when propellants and explosives are being tested for stability it is done in the small lab built into each bunker (so that if something has become unstable and does explode the blast is contained inside the bunker). As I said before look at google maps (satellite view) and use a little logic and deductive reasoning. All the information is out there all you have to do is join it all up to see the big picture. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
By the way the contract is a swap out one...
When missiles need refubishment (to be clear that is the solid rocket fuel [thermite]) swapping out one of our boats goes over to one of the USSBM bases and does a straight swap 1 for 1 and the USN/DOD take over from there. That is the real nature of the common pool contract. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you think they are not a deterrent? What do you think is more strategically effective that a submarine based ICBMs? "
Because CND and Greenpeace say so. Of course that we have not been directly attacked by any country since we became a nuclear power is proof of nothing and if we were we are part of NATO so the USA and France would use their nuclear arsenal to protect us (just like they did to protect Ukraine)... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I mentioned Trident, too, which has recently been refunded, I think. When the US military think tanks are including that in their 'defunct weaponry', even though it's their weapon and they have the ultimate say in its use (due to on board override systems), why are we- the UK- continuing with it? Someone please tell me we also have something that is suited to modern warfare ...or have we sold it all to Saudi Arabia?
I hate warfare- it makes my skin crawl just writing this.
Trident isn't defunct, or under sole US control. The F35 is a great plane, but I'm not convinced it was the best plane. The problem with military procurement, of nearly all countries, is that they are very bad at predicting what the next war will be.
Trident is good as it is a nuclear deterrent. It is highly unlikely that we will ever use it, and I hope we never have to, but it's important that we have it.
I would say one of the main things with the F35 is do we really need a stealth/low observable radar signature aircraft? If we look at recent wars in iraq, Afghan, Syria, Libya etc. We need good air to ground attack aircraft, and close air support. You want an aircraft that is very good at air to ground, can hold a wide variety and ammount of ordinance, and one that can stay on station for a long time. Having a "stealth" aircraft its hard to achieve this with only internal fuel tanks and weapons bays. I would say thr lastest versions of the F/A-18 are great planes."
There's quite a lot of material regarding the F35's problems that need putting right. Lets hope it gets sorted and we the taxpayer aren't lumbered with a shite warplane |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I mentioned Trident, too, which has recently been refunded, I think. When the US military think tanks are including that in their 'defunct weaponry', even though it's their weapon and they have the ultimate say in its use (due to on board override systems), why are we- the UK- continuing with it? Someone please tell me we also have something that is suited to modern warfare ...or have we sold it all to Saudi Arabia?
I hate warfare- it makes my skin crawl just writing this.
Trident isn't defunct, or under sole US control. The F35 is a great plane, but I'm not convinced it was the best plane. The problem with military procurement, of nearly all countries, is that they are very bad at predicting what the next war will be.
Trident is good as it is a nuclear deterrent. It is highly unlikely that we will ever use it, and I hope we never have to, but it's important that we have it.
I would say one of the main things with the F35 is do we really need a stealth/low observable radar signature aircraft? If we look at recent wars in iraq, Afghan, Syria, Libya etc. We need good air to ground attack aircraft, and close air support. You want an aircraft that is very good at air to ground, can hold a wide variety and ammount of ordinance, and one that can stay on station for a long time. Having a "stealth" aircraft its hard to achieve this with only internal fuel tanks and weapons bays. I would say thr lastest versions of the F/A-18 are great planes.
There's quite a lot of material regarding the F35's problems that need putting right. Lets hope it gets sorted and we the taxpayer aren't lumbered with a shite warplane "
Juzt my thoughts on the plane from reports.. No disrespect to your opinions |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
The F35 has suffered from many problems, with engine fires being the most serious.
It is hoped that the C variant will become the warplane of choice for both the US and the UK.
The UK ones will be known as "Lightnings" but are known by aircraft enthusiasts as "Daves". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"The F35 has suffered from many problems, with engine fires being the most serious.
It is hoped that the C variant will become the warplane of choice for both the US and the UK.
The UK ones will be known as "Lightnings" but are known by aircraft enthusiasts as "Daves"."
We're not getting the C because it needs cats and trap which we dont have. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"The F35 has suffered from many problems, with engine fires being the most serious.
It is hoped that the C variant will become the warplane of choice for both the US and the UK.
The UK ones will be known as "Lightnings" but are known by aircraft enthusiasts as "Daves".
We're not getting the C because it needs cats and trap which we dont have."
That's for the carrier aircraft, which will operate B's. Ç 's can operate from airbases, Marham in Norfolk being where they will be based.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"The F35 has suffered from many problems, with engine fires being the most serious.
It is hoped that the C variant will become the warplane of choice for both the US and the UK.
The UK ones will be known as "Lightnings" but are known by aircraft enthusiasts as "Daves".
We're not getting the C because it needs cats and trap which we dont have.
That's for the carrier aircraft, which will operate B's. Ç 's can operate from airbases, Marham in Norfolk being where they will be based.
"
C is is carrier variant, B is short take off vertical landing (STOVL) varient than the RN are getting, and A is your standard land based regular take off and landing version. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"https://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/Lightning.cfm
Top Right says we are getting the B variant. STOVL"
Apologies, it's been a long two days at the Test Match!
The UK is committed to buying 138 F35s, of which the only firm commitment is for 48 type Bs for the two carriers.
The Goverment this week, have stated that the other 90 aircraft, could be of other variants.
Type Ç is for carriers but as it is heavier, then it needs assistance to get off an aircraft carrier.
My assumption was that we would take the C variant for land based operations, as they can't be used on our carriers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"https://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/Lightning.cfm
Top Right says we are getting the B variant. STOVL
Apologies, it's been a long two days at the Test Match!
The UK is committed to buying 138 F35s, of which the only firm commitment is for 48 type Bs for the two carriers.
The Goverment this week, have stated that the other 90 aircraft, could be of other variants.
Type Ç is for carriers but as it is heavier, then it needs assistance to get off an aircraft carrier.
My assumption was that we would take the C variant for land based operations, as they can't be used on our carriers."
No problem |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
" I understand that you have read RN/UKG/USN public relations material, but it is clear you have never been on a CAD or a military munitions storage facility "
Actually, I haven't read PR material. The confusion over serving vs recommissioning is mine as I couldn't remember at the stupid o'clock I answered.But other sources do say they are serviced in the US. Error, I guess.
The geography of the bunkers is a bit irrelevant to my point. That they are beside a deep water port is obvious. You know a lot more about it than I do but there's still the point that the US wants the UK to commission items more relevant to the modern day but it seems the MOD is sticking to the past.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
" I understand that you have read RN/UKG/USN public relations material, but it is clear you have never been on a CAD or a military munitions storage facility "
Actually, I haven't read PR material. The confusion over serving vs recommissioning is mine as I couldn't remember at the stupid o'clock I answered.But other sources do say they are serviced in the US. Error, I guess.
The geography of the bunkers is a bit irrelevant to my point. That they are beside a deep water port is obvious. You know a lot more about it than I do but there's still the point that the US wants the UK to commission items more relevant to the modern day but it seems the MOD is sticking to the past.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
" I understand that you have read RN/UKG/USN public relations material, but it is clear you have never been on a CAD or a military munitions storage facility
Actually, I haven't read PR material. The confusion over serving vs recommissioning is mine as I couldn't remember at the stupid o'clock I answered.But other sources do say they are serviced in the US. Error, I guess.
The geography of the bunkers is a bit irrelevant to my point. That they are beside a deep water port is obvious. You know a lot more about it than I do but there's still the point that the US wants the UK to commission items more relevant to the modern day but it seems the MOD is sticking to the past.
"
The US and the UK have the same missle, the Trident II D5. I doubt that they are wanting us to commission new missles that are more "relevant" to the modern day when we are both using the same. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Actually, I haven't read PR material. The confusion over serving vs recommissioning is mine as I couldn't remember at the stupid o'clock I answered.But other sources do say they are serviced in the US. Error, I guess.
The geography of the bunkers is a bit irrelevant to my point. That they are beside a deep water port is obvious. You know a lot more about it than I do but there's still the point that the US wants the UK to commission items more relevant to the modern day but it seems the MOD is sticking to the past.
"
You really should have looked at the satellite view of Coulston before replying. If you had you would have seen roads to the storage bunkers AND a rather large industrial complex...
My point was if all they did there was load unload and store missiles while the boat that carry them are in port they WOULD NOT need or have those industrial buildings! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The US and the UK have the same missle, the Trident II D5. I doubt that they are wanting us to commission new missles that are more "relevant" to the modern day when we are both using the same. "
I have heard that the US wants us to stop producing our own warheads and use theirs instead. So maybe that is what was being referred to.
I really hope we dont go down that route because it sounds to me very like what happened in the 60's when the yanks suddenly realised that our devices had larger yields than theirs and the missiles we were developing were more sophisticated than theirs and had a greater range. So they offered to sell us Polarus providing we scrapped our development of an independent missile based delivery system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Actually, I haven't read PR material. The confusion over serving vs recommissioning is mine as I couldn't remember at the stupid o'clock I answered.But other sources do say they are serviced in the US. Error, I guess.
The geography of the bunkers is a bit irrelevant to my point. That they are beside a deep water port is obvious. You know a lot more about it than I do but there's still the point that the US wants the UK to commission items more relevant to the modern day but it seems the MOD is sticking to the past.
You really should have looked at the satellite view of Coulston before replying. If you had you would have seen roads to the storage bunkers AND a rather large industrial complex...
My point was if all they did there was load unload and store missiles while the boat that carry them are in port they WOULD NOT need or have those industrial buildings! "
But it's a point that's so obvious, it doesn't need to be made. Nor did I suggest that such a massive complex simply dodders about moving warheads about. In fact, I didn't mention it at all. It's not what I was talking about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But it's a point that's so obvious, it doesn't need to be made. Nor did I suggest that such a massive complex simply dodders about moving warheads about. In fact, I didn't mention it at all. It's not what I was talking about. "
Funny, I would have sworn you said:
"I know that. That's why they aren't the deterrent they were.
They are serviced or recommisioned in the US- at any one time I'm told there is one there. It's part of the contract with the US"
And then in reply to me telling you where to look, and how to look and wht you should look. You said:
"Actually, I haven't read PR material. The confusion over serving vs recommissioning is mine as I couldn't remember at the stupid o'clock I answered.But other sources do say they are serviced in the US. Error, I guess.
The geography of the bunkers is a bit irrelevant to my point. That they are beside a deep water port is obvious. You know a lot more about it than I do but there's still the point that the US wants the UK to commission items more relevant to the modern day but it seems the MOD is sticking to the past."
So in light of the above I would say stating the blindingly obvious was very necessary.
Now if you wish to try the CND nuclear weapons are immoral argument I'll explain to you why that is also wrong and when you dismiss what I say I'll spoonfeed you the number and let you choose which of 2 future worlds you want your children and grandchildren to live in. Me I'll keep the security of nuclear weapons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Actually, I haven't read PR material. The confusion over serving vs recommissioning is mine as I couldn't remember at the stupid o'clock I answered.But other sources do say they are serviced in the US. Error, I guess.
The geography of the bunkers is a bit irrelevant to my point. That they are beside a deep water port is obvious. You know a lot more about it than I do but there's still the point that the US wants the UK to commission items more relevant to the modern day but it seems the MOD is sticking to the past.
You really should have looked at the satellite view of Coulston before replying. If you had you would have seen roads to the storage bunkers AND a rather large industrial complex...
My point was if all they did there was load unload and store missiles while the boat that carry them are in port they WOULD NOT need or have those industrial buildings!
But it's a point that's so obvious, it doesn't need to be made. Nor did I suggest that such a massive complex simply dodders about moving warheads about. In fact, I didn't mention it at all. It's not what I was talking about. "
What point are you trying to make OP? We have already pointed out that a submarine based deterrent is best, that the UK is fully capable of firing its missiles independently, and that it as not only as up to date as the US deterrent, its the same bloody missile! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
The point I made was Trident, according to the US , is not a deterrent any more since the nature of the wars fought have changed and that the opinion was that a fully equipped aircraft carrier could be sunk by cheap weapons. The opinions aren't mine, they are from the head of US military and the Royal United Service Institute. Russia and China have focused on developing capabilities to defeat them. It also is scathing about Trident, seeing it as 'less appropriate and credible in the modern world'.
Maybe you should email them a Google picture of Faslane and its bunkers, as they don't appear to put much store by it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"The point I made was Trident, according to the US , is not a deterrent any more since the nature of the wars fought have changed and that the opinion was that a fully equipped aircraft carrier could be sunk by cheap weapons. The opinions aren't mine, they are from the head of US military and the Royal United Service Institute. Russia and China have focused on developing capabilities to defeat them. It also is scathing about Trident, seeing it as 'less appropriate and credible in the modern world'.
Maybe you should email them a Google picture of Faslane and its bunkers, as they don't appear to put much store by it. "
So why do the US still have them in their fleet? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The point I made was Trident, according to the US , is not a deterrent any more since the nature of the wars fought have changed and that the opinion was that a fully equipped aircraft carrier could be sunk by cheap weapons. The opinions aren't mine, they are from the head of US military and the Royal United Service Institute. Russia and China have focused on developing capabilities to defeat them. It also is scathing about Trident, seeing it as 'less appropriate and credible in the modern world'.
Maybe you should email them a Google picture of Faslane and its bunkers, as they don't appear to put much store by it.
So why do the US still have them in their fleet? "
the us have more powerful nukes than the d5 now and they don't pull all of them on subs then have launch pads in America plus planes that can drop them anywhere |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"The point I made was Trident, according to the US , is not a deterrent any more since the nature of the wars fought have changed and that the opinion was that a fully equipped aircraft carrier could be sunk by cheap weapons. The opinions aren't mine, they are from the head of US military and the Royal United Service Institute. Russia and China have focused on developing capabilities to defeat them. It also is scathing about Trident, seeing it as 'less appropriate and credible in the modern world'.
Maybe you should email them a Google picture of Faslane and its bunkers, as they don't appear to put much store by it.
So why do the US still have them in their fleet? the us have more powerful nukes than the d5 now and they don't pull all of them on subs then have launch pads in America plus planes that can drop them anywhere "
They are first strike options, a credible nuclear deterrent needs to be second strike capable |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The point I made was Trident, according to the US , is not a deterrent any more since the nature of the wars fought have changed and that the opinion was that a fully equipped aircraft carrier could be sunk by cheap weapons. The opinions aren't mine, they are from the head of US military and the Royal United Service Institute. Russia and China have focused on developing capabilities to defeat them. It also is scathing about Trident, seeing it as 'less appropriate and credible in the modern world'.
Maybe you should email them a Google picture of Faslane and its bunkers, as they don't appear to put much store by it. "
Oh my god! What a simpleton! The nature of war has changed since the advent of nuclear weapons so lets get rid of them all as they are no longer needed...
Then the major powers can return to the carnage and charnel houses that were post industrialisation of warfare and pre nuclear weapons. The time when in 45 years humanity recorded 85 million killed in wars. As opposed to the 22.5 million recorded killed in wars in the last 72 years.
Any more bright ideas OP? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
No need to be aggressive. Especially since you're wrong for the following reason as it makes you look foolish:.
You've introduced a new concept into the mix- nuclear disarmament. No one, especially me, has talked about that. Why not open a thread all of your own if you want to discuss it?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No need to be aggressive. Especially since you're wrong for the following reason as it makes you look foolish:.
You've introduced a new concept into the mix- nuclear disarmament. No one, especially me, has talked about that. Why not open a thread all of your own if you want to discuss it?
"
The whole point of placing our nuclear deterrent on nuclear submarines is so that they a nearly impossible target to hit prior to launching a strike. Once a strike is launched they are extremely vulnerable to attack but by then it is too late. The only justification to scrapping our SSBN capability is nuclear disarmament so therefore although you did not realise what you were suggesting you were the one who brought the subject up, all I have done is spelled out in simple words what the implications of your suggestion are. Even though I have tried to lead you to working out that maybe you have been misled and Trident is neither obsolete or something we should want to give up, you stubbornly keep saying you know all about it when clearly you don't is very frustrating.
So carry on, believe what you will because clearly you are not open to changing your mind no matter what.
So I think this 'old codger' will not be posting here again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Fair enough. I'm pretty sick of it too.- you aren't reading what I wrote.
It's not what I'm suggesting- it's what the US were suggesting. I think top ranking military person there knows more about it than I do. I presume he had a Plan B. I wasn't privy to that.
I suppose it all comes down to whether or not another country believes a nuclear deterrent is of use. It's not really whether the west thinks it's a deterrent, it's whether another power thinks we'd fire it or that they'd get in first. In an increasingly unstable world, that's an unknown. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Fair enough. I'm pretty sick of it too.- you aren't reading what I wrote.
It's not what I'm suggesting- it's what the US were suggesting. I think top ranking military person there knows more about it than I do. I presume he had a Plan B. I wasn't privy to that.
I suppose it all comes down to whether or not another country believes a nuclear deterrent is of use. It's not really whether the west thinks it's a deterrent, it's whether another power thinks we'd fire it or that they'd get in first. In an increasingly unstable world, that's an unknown. "
So better to have it then
Do you have a link to this 'top US military person' who doesn't believe in the nuclear deterrent?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Fair enough. I'm pretty sick of it too.- you aren't reading what I wrote.
It's not what I'm suggesting- it's what the US were suggesting. I think top ranking military person there knows more about it than I do. I presume he had a Plan B. I wasn't privy to that.
I suppose it all comes down to whether or not another country believes a nuclear deterrent is of use. It's not really whether the west thinks it's a deterrent, it's whether another power thinks we'd fire it or that they'd get in first. In an increasingly unstable world, that's an unknown.
So better to have it then
Do you have a link to this 'top US military person' who doesn't believe in the nuclear deterrent?
"
I think they were a good deterant after ww2 bit the world have changed look how much damage isis has caused still no one will not and cannot nuke them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Not read all the thread, but so what if one American doesn't believe in the nuclear deterrent? The Americans are also replacing their Ohio class submarine so they'll be just as outdated as us when the replacement comes into service if your source was correct. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Fair enough. I'm pretty sick of it too.- you aren't reading what I wrote.
It's not what I'm suggesting- it's what the US were suggesting. I think top ranking military person there knows more about it than I do. I presume he had a Plan B. I wasn't privy to that.
I suppose it all comes down to whether or not another country believes a nuclear deterrent is of use. It's not really whether the west thinks it's a deterrent, it's whether another power thinks we'd fire it or that they'd get in first. In an increasingly unstable world, that's an unknown.
So better to have it then
Do you have a link to this 'top US military person' who doesn't believe in the nuclear deterrent?
I think they were a good deterant after ww2 bit the world have changed look how much damage isis has caused still no one will not and cannot nuke them"
ISIS isn't the only conflict. Would Russia have invaded Ukraine or Georgia if they had been nuclear powers? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Not read all the thread, but so what if one American doesn't believe in the nuclear deterrent? The Americans are also replacing their Ohio class submarine so they'll be just as outdated as us when the replacement comes into service if your source was correct. "
I think the replacement for the Ohio class has been scrapped. But I dont think there was going to be a new missile anyway. I think the Trident 2 D5 is about as good as it needs to be. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not read all the thread, but so what if one American doesn't believe in the nuclear deterrent? The Americans are also replacing their Ohio class submarine so they'll be just as outdated as us when the replacement comes into service if your source was correct.
I think the replacement for the Ohio class has been scrapped. But I dont think there was going to be a new missile anyway. I think the Trident 2 D5 is about as good as it needs to be."
As I understand it the Columbia class submarine is still going ahead. I know at one point there was changing of the ISD but the US slipped and the UK will now go first. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Not read all the thread, but so what if one American doesn't believe in the nuclear deterrent? The Americans are also replacing their Ohio class submarine so they'll be just as outdated as us when the replacement comes into service if your source was correct.
I think the replacement for the Ohio class has been scrapped. But I dont think there was going to be a new missile anyway. I think the Trident 2 D5 is about as good as it needs to be.
As I understand it the Columbia class submarine is still going ahead. I know at one point there was changing of the ISD but the US slipped and the UK will now go first. "
Right you are, they are replacing the Ohio and we are replacing the Vanguard class. Both the replacement boats will be armed with the Trident II D5 though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Do you have a link to this 'top US military person' who doesn't believe in the nuclear deterrent?
"
Hmm please read what I wrote ( and he said). That was, Trident is outdated. To my recall, he was not talking specifically about nuclear disarmament. I can find the source for you, will just take a while. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
ok, on a quick scout round the search engines in pursuit of this US military person's name, -I can't find so need to dig out the actual paperwork about it,- but interesting, found a whole lot of UK names saying pretty much the same thing-
-Major General Patrick Cordingly (who also interestingly was adamant that the UK CANNOT fire Trident without US say-so. He should know, since he led the first Gulf War UK troops)
-Field Marshall Lord Bramwell
-Army General Lord Ramsbotham
-Army General Sir Hugh Boyd
The UK National Security Strategy 2010 downgraded nuclear war to below that of natural catastrophes and other types of military risk. (what it is, of 2017, I don't know)
Several UK Defence Secretaries have been against the replacement of Trident, some as being 'a waste of money', others as 'no deterrent.
Also, according to some sources, the US will no longer be servicing (sic) the warheads after 2025....so where do the go after that?
I'm not voicing an opinion about disarmament, just quoting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The americans know its obsolete. Thats why they are testing the hyper sonic delivery sytems.There was a successful test this week in Australia.
By the time 2030 comes around the oceans will be full of drones tracking subs.Google squids mounted on drones.Or swarm drones the us navy have which are autonomous and search vast areas of ocean for subs.Trident will be as stealthy as an elephant come 2030.Itll be scrapped by 2040 if its replaced.We will be 40 billion poorer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"ok, on a quick scout round the search engines in pursuit of this US military person's name, -I can't find so need to dig out the actual paperwork about it,- but interesting, found a whole lot of UK names saying pretty much the same thing-
-Major General Patrick Cordingly (who also interestingly was adamant that the UK CANNOT fire Trident without US say-so. He should know, since he led the first Gulf War UK troops)
-Field Marshall Lord Bramwell
-Army General Lord Ramsbotham
-Army General Sir Hugh Boyd
The UK National Security Strategy 2010 downgraded nuclear war to below that of natural catastrophes and other types of military risk. (what it is, of 2017, I don't know)
Several UK Defence Secretaries have been against the replacement of Trident, some as being 'a waste of money', others as 'no deterrent.
Also, according to some sources, the US will no longer be servicing (sic) the warheads after 2025....so where do the go after that?
I'm not voicing an opinion about disarmament, just quoting."
I'm confused, are you saying that these people want nucleae disarmament, or that Trident, a submarine based nuclear missile with multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (warheads), is no longer up to the job and they say we need a newer missile that will also make the tea? Your argument seems to change with every post. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
No need to be confused.
You asked who the US military person was who was adamant Trident was outdated. In looking for his name, I found several UK sources with high ranking military personnel also against renewing Trident. They weren't anti nuclear per se, just saw Trident as too old fashioned and possibly too US-centered.
Back to my original question- should the UK replace Trident or not? It seems if you believe in the need for a nuclear arsenal, the answer is yes. I've not read of any other nuclear replacement option- is there one?. If you see the need to respond to different, modern threats, the answer is possibly no. I post no opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"No need to be confused.
You asked who the US military person was who was adamant Trident was outdated. In looking for his name, I found several UK sources with high ranking military personnel also against renewing Trident. They weren't anti nuclear per se, just saw Trident as too old fashioned and possibly too US-centered.
Back to my original question- should the UK replace Trident or not? It seems if you believe in the need for a nuclear arsenal, the answer is yes. I've not read of any other nuclear replacement option- is there one?. If you see the need to respond to different, modern threats, the answer is possibly no. I post no opinion."
Well saying that Trident (a specific missile) is "outdated", reads as though there is a newer missile that would be better. Is that you are saying? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No need to be confused.
You asked who the US military person was who was adamant Trident was outdated. In looking for his name, I found several UK sources with high ranking military personnel also against renewing Trident. They weren't anti nuclear per se, just saw Trident as too old fashioned and possibly too US-centered.
Back to my original question- should the UK replace Trident or not? It seems if you believe in the need for a nuclear arsenal, the answer is yes. I've not read of any other nuclear replacement option- is there one?. If you see the need to respond to different, modern threats, the answer is possibly no. I post no opinion."
I haven't checked to see if they're against trident but it's interesting to note that all those listed are in the army. The services are always fighting for their share of the defence budget so there's no surprise that some in the army are against trident. They'd much prefer the funds to be spent on their own service.
I tend to agree with the other posters though, it's difficult to tell what you're point is as it seems to keep changing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"No need to be confused.
You asked who the US military person was who was adamant Trident was outdated. In looking for his name, I found several UK sources with high ranking military personnel also against renewing Trident. They weren't anti nuclear per se, just saw Trident as too old fashioned and possibly too US-centered.
Back to my original question- should the UK replace Trident or not? It seems if you believe in the need for a nuclear arsenal, the answer is yes. I've not read of any other nuclear replacement option- is there one?. If you see the need to respond to different, modern threats, the answer is possibly no. I post no opinion.
I haven't checked to see if they're against trident but it's interesting to note that all those listed are in the army. The services are always fighting for their share of the defence budget so there's no surprise that some in the army are against trident. They'd much prefer the funds to be spent on their own service.
I tend to agree with the other posters though, it's difficult to tell what you're point is as it seems to keep changing."
I'm glad I'm not the only one! Trident is a specific missile, it is not synonymous with nuclear deterrent. If people could make it clear which they are talking about it would make things much clearer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"ok, on a quick scout round the search engines in pursuit of this US military person's name, -I can't find so need to dig out the actual paperwork about it,- but interesting, found a whole lot of UK names saying pretty much the same thing-
-Major General Patrick Cordingly (who also interestingly was adamant that the UK CANNOT fire Trident without US say-so. He should know, since he led the first Gulf War UK troops)
-Field Marshall Lord Bramwell
-Army General Lord Ramsbotham
-Army General Sir Hugh Boyd
The UK National Security Strategy 2010 downgraded nuclear war to below that of natural catastrophes and other types of military risk. (what it is, of 2017, I don't know)
Several UK Defence Secretaries have been against the replacement of Trident, some as being 'a waste of money', others as 'no deterrent.
Also, according to some sources, the US will no longer be servicing (sic) the warheads after 2025....so where do the go after that?
I'm not voicing an opinion about disarmament, just quoting."
Sorry I said i would not be posting here again, but I can't let this slide...
Did anyone notice how everyone named above is either Army or Air Force? Funny how not one of those you name is a Navy officer. There has always been a hidden battle between Navy, Army and Air Force for control of the nuclear arsenal and the budget that goes with it. OP you have just bought into that fight without any real understanding of military politics.
As for Defence Secretaries wanting to scrap Trident, again how much of that do you think is about being able to reallocate the money in ways that will further their (and their colleagues) political careers and how much is about defence of the realm? Remember these are the same SoDs who sent British military personnel to war zones under strength under equipped and with substandard and frankly useless kit! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
You do me an an injustice. I haven't bought into anything. Those were the names who appeared over a couple of reports so I guess it's not surprising they're all from one branch. It's such a contentious subject, there will be others.
Cynicism around policies and politics is healthy but as we will never be party to the full story, we can't make judgements on situations like this with full knowledge. As I said, if you believe in a nuclear deterrent as essential, Trident should be renewed. If you believe the submarines will be found before being able to fire any missile, you won't. It's an interesting division of opinion.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As I said, if you believe in a nuclear deterrent as essential, Trident should be renewed. If you believe the submarines will be found before being able to fire any missile, you won't. It's an interesting division of opinion.
"
Is there a body of opinion that believes the subs will be found before they can fire a missile? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"As I said, if you believe in a nuclear deterrent as essential, Trident should be renewed. If you believe the submarines will be found before being able to fire any missile, you won't. It's an interesting division of opinion.
Is there a body of opinion that believes the subs will be found before they can fire a missile?"
Or which delivery system is better than submarine launched ICMBs with MIRV? Land based missiles? Air dropped bombs? Nuclear artillery? Nuclear land mines? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As I said, if you believe in a nuclear deterrent as essential, Trident should be renewed. If you believe the submarines will be found before being able to fire any missile, you won't. It's an interesting division of opinion.
Is there a body of opinion that believes the subs will be found before they can fire a missile?"
The idea of drone swarms in a maritime environment is already on the security agenda with concerns raised over how such developments may render the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines obsolete.
In December 2015, Paul Ingram of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) told the Independent that a combination of advanced satellite technology and the revolution in underwater drones would make the oceans transparent and could render nuclear-armed submarines irrelevant.
“With satellite surveillance able to look further and further into the water, coupled with the possibility of ‘swarming’ underwater drones which are likely to become cheaper and cheaper to produce, it raises serious questions about the wisdom of putting all your nuclear weapons on board a submarine,” he said.
“The only purpose for doing that, it is claimed, is to make them hard to detect, which could well be impossible to achieve by the time the new Trident program is launched.” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"As I said, if you believe in a nuclear deterrent as essential, Trident should be renewed. If you believe the submarines will be found before being able to fire any missile, you won't. It's an interesting division of opinion.
Is there a body of opinion that believes the subs will be found before they can fire a missile?
The idea of drone swarms in a maritime environment is already on the security agenda with concerns raised over how such developments may render the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines obsolete.
In December 2015, Paul Ingram of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) told the Independent that a combination of advanced satellite technology and the revolution in underwater drones would make the oceans transparent and could render nuclear-armed submarines irrelevant.
“With satellite surveillance able to look further and further into the water, coupled with the possibility of ‘swarming’ underwater drones which are likely to become cheaper and cheaper to produce, it raises serious questions about the wisdom of putting all your nuclear weapons on board a submarine,” he said.
“The only purpose for doing that, it is claimed, is to make them hard to detect, which could well be impossible to achieve by the time the new Trident program is launched.”"
What about drones to take out the drones though? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As I said, if you believe in a nuclear deterrent as essential, Trident should be renewed. If you believe the submarines will be found before being able to fire any missile, you won't. It's an interesting division of opinion.
Is there a body of opinion that believes the subs will be found before they can fire a missile?
The idea of drone swarms in a maritime environment is already on the security agenda with concerns raised over how such developments may render the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines obsolete.
In December 2015, Paul Ingram of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) told the Independent that a combination of advanced satellite technology and the revolution in underwater drones would make the oceans transparent and could render nuclear-armed submarines irrelevant.
“With satellite surveillance able to look further and further into the water, coupled with the possibility of ‘swarming’ underwater drones which are likely to become cheaper and cheaper to produce, it raises serious questions about the wisdom of putting all your nuclear weapons on board a submarine,” he said.
“The only purpose for doing that, it is claimed, is to make them hard to detect, which could well be impossible to achieve by the time the new Trident program is launched.”"
Paul Ingram is looking at the worst scenario he can come up with as his whole raison d'etre is nuclear disarmament. I'm sure whatever the future throws up there will also be counter measures and so on and so on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As I said, if you believe in a nuclear deterrent as essential, Trident should be renewed. If you believe the submarines will be found before being able to fire any missile, you won't. It's an interesting division of opinion.
Is there a body of opinion that believes the subs will be found before they can fire a missile?
The idea of drone swarms in a maritime environment is already on the security agenda with concerns raised over how such developments may render the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines obsolete.
In December 2015, Paul Ingram of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) told the Independent that a combination of advanced satellite technology and the revolution in underwater drones would make the oceans transparent and could render nuclear-armed submarines irrelevant.
“With satellite surveillance able to look further and further into the water, coupled with the possibility of ‘swarming’ underwater drones which are likely to become cheaper and cheaper to produce, it raises serious questions about the wisdom of putting all your nuclear weapons on board a submarine,” he said.
“The only purpose for doing that, it is claimed, is to make them hard to detect, which could well be impossible to achieve by the time the new Trident program is launched.”
What about drones to take out the drones though? "
Thats exactly what the US navy is looking at.These submarines are going to require surface support.So the days of a sub going off for months without making contact maybe over.It might be to dangerous. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"As I said, if you believe in a nuclear deterrent as essential, Trident should be renewed. If you believe the submarines will be found before being able to fire any missile, you won't. It's an interesting division of opinion.
Is there a body of opinion that believes the subs will be found before they can fire a missile?
The idea of drone swarms in a maritime environment is already on the security agenda with concerns raised over how such developments may render the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines obsolete.
In December 2015, Paul Ingram of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) told the Independent that a combination of advanced satellite technology and the revolution in underwater drones would make the oceans transparent and could render nuclear-armed submarines irrelevant.
“With satellite surveillance able to look further and further into the water, coupled with the possibility of ‘swarming’ underwater drones which are likely to become cheaper and cheaper to produce, it raises serious questions about the wisdom of putting all your nuclear weapons on board a submarine,” he said.
“The only purpose for doing that, it is claimed, is to make them hard to detect, which could well be impossible to achieve by the time the new Trident program is launched.”
What about drones to take out the drones though? Thats exactly what the US navy is looking at.These submarines are going to require surface support.So the days of a sub going off for months without making contact maybe over.It might be to dangerous."
You mean the missile boats or the drones? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As I said, if you believe in a nuclear deterrent as essential, Trident should be renewed. If you believe the submarines will be found before being able to fire any missile, you won't. It's an interesting division of opinion.
Is there a body of opinion that believes the subs will be found before they can fire a missile?
The idea of drone swarms in a maritime environment is already on the security agenda with concerns raised over how such developments may render the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines obsolete.
In December 2015, Paul Ingram of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) told the Independent that a combination of advanced satellite technology and the revolution in underwater drones would make the oceans transparent and could render nuclear-armed submarines irrelevant.
“With satellite surveillance able to look further and further into the water, coupled with the possibility of ‘swarming’ underwater drones which are likely to become cheaper and cheaper to produce, it raises serious questions about the wisdom of putting all your nuclear weapons on board a submarine,” he said.
“The only purpose for doing that, it is claimed, is to make them hard to detect, which could well be impossible to achieve by the time the new Trident program is launched.”
What about drones to take out the drones though? Thats exactly what the US navy is looking at.These submarines are going to require surface support.So the days of a sub going off for months without making contact maybe over.It might be to dangerous.
You mean the missile boats or the drones? "
Here as article on the future of underwater warfare.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2015/01/23/submarines-warfare-undersea-technology-navy-csba/22221565/ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"As I said, if you believe in a nuclear deterrent as essential, Trident should be renewed. If you believe the submarines will be found before being able to fire any missile, you won't. It's an interesting division of opinion.
Is there a body of opinion that believes the subs will be found before they can fire a missile?
The idea of drone swarms in a maritime environment is already on the security agenda with concerns raised over how such developments may render the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines obsolete.
In December 2015, Paul Ingram of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) told the Independent that a combination of advanced satellite technology and the revolution in underwater drones would make the oceans transparent and could render nuclear-armed submarines irrelevant.
“With satellite surveillance able to look further and further into the water, coupled with the possibility of ‘swarming’ underwater drones which are likely to become cheaper and cheaper to produce, it raises serious questions about the wisdom of putting all your nuclear weapons on board a submarine,” he said.
“The only purpose for doing that, it is claimed, is to make them hard to detect, which could well be impossible to achieve by the time the new Trident program is launched.”
What about drones to take out the drones though? Thats exactly what the US navy is looking at.These submarines are going to require surface support.So the days of a sub going off for months without making contact maybe over.It might be to dangerous.
You mean the missile boats or the drones? Here as article on the future of underwater warfare.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2015/01/23/submarines-warfare-undersea-technology-navy-csba/22221565/"
That doesn't mention anything about additional support from surface ships, or swarming. It talks about small drones being launched from submarines, which is feasible, however it talks about taking existing anti-ship missiles and firing them into the sea at submarines! Ridiculous. It says that this will have up to 200 mile range underwater. The author doesn't seem to have taken into account the differnce in density between water and air.
Although sensors are improving, the main detection method for submarines has always been accoustic. Just think of the aquaphones in the GIUK Gap. The author admits that while the sensors are getting better, the subs are getting quieter and using active noise cancelling technology. An easy counter measure would be noisy drones. You could fill the ocean with little cheap drones that sound like bigger nuclear subs. Let all of those be blown up by missiles fired 200m away. You see as detection improves, so that drives new innovation in evasion, and so the circle continues. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As I said, if you believe in a nuclear deterrent as essential, Trident should be renewed. If you believe the submarines will be found before being able to fire any missile, you won't. It's an interesting division of opinion.
Is there a body of opinion that believes the subs will be found before they can fire a missile?
The idea of drone swarms in a maritime environment is already on the security agenda with concerns raised over how such developments may render the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines obsolete.
In December 2015, Paul Ingram of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) told the Independent that a combination of advanced satellite technology and the revolution in underwater drones would make the oceans transparent and could render nuclear-armed submarines irrelevant.
“With satellite surveillance able to look further and further into the water, coupled with the possibility of ‘swarming’ underwater drones which are likely to become cheaper and cheaper to produce, it raises serious questions about the wisdom of putting all your nuclear weapons on board a submarine,” he said.
“The only purpose for doing that, it is claimed, is to make them hard to detect, which could well be impossible to achieve by the time the new Trident program is launched.”
What about drones to take out the drones though? Thats exactly what the US navy is looking at.These submarines are going to require surface support.So the days of a sub going off for months without making contact maybe over.It might be to dangerous.
You mean the missile boats or the drones? Here as article on the future of underwater warfare.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2015/01/23/submarines-warfare-undersea-technology-navy-csba/22221565/
That doesn't mention anything about additional support from surface ships, or swarming. It talks about small drones being launched from submarines, which is feasible, however it talks about taking existing anti-ship missiles and firing them into the sea at submarines! Ridiculous. It says that this will have up to 200 mile range underwater. The author doesn't seem to have taken into account the differnce in density between water and air.
Although sensors are improving, the main detection method for submarines has always been accoustic. Just think of the aquaphones in the GIUK Gap. The author admits that while the sensors are getting better, the subs are getting quieter and using active noise cancelling technology. An easy counter measure would be noisy drones. You could fill the ocean with little cheap drones that sound like bigger nuclear subs. Let all of those be blown up by missiles fired 200m away. You see as detection improves, so that drives new innovation in evasion, and so the circle continues."
The question remains.Will the technology we will be buying be effective in the 2030s and undetectable when it comes online.Can we incorporate drone launching technologies.?The battleship once ruled the waves when the skys were free of threats.The same might be said of submarines in the 2030s. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The idea of drone swarms in a maritime environment is already on the security agenda with concerns raised over how such developments may render the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines obsolete.
In December 2015, Paul Ingram of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) told the Independent that a combination of advanced satellite technology and the revolution in underwater drones would make the oceans transparent and could render nuclear-armed submarines irrelevant.
“With satellite surveillance able to look further and further into the water, coupled with the possibility of ‘swarming’ underwater drones which are likely to become cheaper and cheaper to produce, it raises serious questions about the wisdom of putting all your nuclear weapons on board a submarine,” he said.
“The only purpose for doing that, it is claimed, is to make them hard to detect, which could well be impossible to achieve by the time the new Trident program is launched.”"
I know very little about submarine underwater operations as they relate to identification of tracking of submarines. But I do know this, thermoclines and changes in salinity and therefore water density form barrier regions where submarines cannot be detected from the surface and that because these layers are normally so deep only VLW communications are possible and they require massive power to broadcast from underwater, that is why deepsea exploration is done by submersibles with communications umbilicals when traveling through thermoclines. Therefore with due respect I would suggest that underwater drones would be useless in the deep oceans, however I do see how important a role they could play in brown (shallow coastal) water, but this is not where SSBN's operate. Now it is true when a boat comes up from the deep to launch it's missiles it will be visible to satellites, but first a satellite need to be looking closely in the right place because SSBN's are very small and the oceans are very big. And then in the few minutes it takes to launch it's missiles the news of it's discovery needs to be passed up a chain of command to whoever is authorised to order a strike against the boat, then down to the nearest contactable asset with the capability to destroy the boat, which then has to not only target but launch it's weapons in time that they reach the boat before it fires it's missiles...
All that in a few minutes in the vastness of the deep oceans.
I would suggest that if it ever comes to launching a nuclear strike from SSBN's then the birds will be long gone before the boat launching the strike is itself hit. I do accept that the life expectancy of an SSBN after a launch is counted in minutes rather than hours, but to believe it is possible for anything other than a shadowing hunter killer to stop an SSBN from launching a strike is frankly delusional. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"The idea of drone swarms in a maritime environment is already on the security agenda with concerns raised over how such developments may render the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines obsolete.
In December 2015, Paul Ingram of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) told the Independent that a combination of advanced satellite technology and the revolution in underwater drones would make the oceans transparent and could render nuclear-armed submarines irrelevant.
“With satellite surveillance able to look further and further into the water, coupled with the possibility of ‘swarming’ underwater drones which are likely to become cheaper and cheaper to produce, it raises serious questions about the wisdom of putting all your nuclear weapons on board a submarine,” he said.
“The only purpose for doing that, it is claimed, is to make them hard to detect, which could well be impossible to achieve by the time the new Trident program is launched.”
I know very little about submarine underwater operations as they relate to identification of tracking of submarines. But I do know this, thermoclines and changes in salinity and therefore water density form barrier regions where submarines cannot be detected from the surface and that because these layers are normally so deep only VLW communications are possible and they require massive power to broadcast from underwater, that is why deepsea exploration is done by submersibles with communications umbilicals when traveling through thermoclines. Therefore with due respect I would suggest that underwater drones would be useless in the deep oceans, however I do see how important a role they could play in brown (shallow coastal) water, but this is not where SSBN's operate. Now it is true when a boat comes up from the deep to launch it's missiles it will be visible to satellites, but first a satellite need to be looking closely in the right place because SSBN's are very small and the oceans are very big. And then in the few minutes it takes to launch it's missiles the news of it's discovery needs to be passed up a chain of command to whoever is authorised to order a strike against the boat, then down to the nearest contactable asset with the capability to destroy the boat, which then has to not only target but launch it's weapons in time that they reach the boat before it fires it's missiles...
All that in a few minutes in the vastness of the deep oceans.
I would suggest that if it ever comes to launching a nuclear strike from SSBN's then the birds will be long gone before the boat launching the strike is itself hit. I do accept that the life expectancy of an SSBN after a launch is counted in minutes rather than hours, but to believe it is possible for anything other than a shadowing hunter killer to stop an SSBN from launching a strike is frankly delusional."
Agreed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Nuclear subs will go the same way as the battleship. The futute belongs to drones. "
So what form will our nuclear deterrent take?
Missile defence is a much much more mature technology than underwater drones, yet the latest Russian system wasn't able to detect and destroy even a single US cruise missile of the nearly 100 that were fired at Syria. I think that your dream of a sea full of drones is a long way off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
So people are on minimum wage jobs zero hour contracts, using food banks social Care, the NHS in crisis, putting up the retirement age, public sector workers held to 1% annual pay rise while inflation is three times that. Schools asking parents for money to fund their education, always being told by politicians and the media there is no money. But hang on we can find the money to bomb Syria, build multi billion trident submarines and aircraft carriers. Why?, for our defence I am told bullshit! I know what I would like my taxes spent on and its not wasteful and useless armaments. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So people are on minimum wage jobs zero hour contracts, using food banks social Care, the NHS in crisis, putting up the retirement age, public sector workers held to 1% annual pay rise while inflation is three times that. Schools asking parents for money to fund their education, always being told by politicians and the media there is no money. But hang on we can find the money to bomb Syria, build multi billion trident submarines and aircraft carriers. Why?, for our defence I am told bullshit! I know what I would like my taxes spent on and its not wasteful and useless armaments."
So your answer is to cut more well paid jobs and turn Barrow into a total unemployment wasteland like so many other northern towns where industries were sacrificed 'to save money'. Now remind me how that policy has worked up till now? Or maybe you think it would be different this time and the money saved would not be used to cut taxes for the super rich individuals and multinational corporations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm all for well paid jobs we agree on that. Tell you what.. instead of spending billions of pounds of our taxes on safeguarding a few well paid jobs, we use it to provide the whole country with good infrastructure,decent housing, good public transport, decent social Care for those in need, a decent state pension. Doing all this will create well paid jobs which the armament loving tories destroyed in the first place, and it will make those communities prosper because people will have money in their pocket to spend in local businesses. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So people are on minimum wage jobs zero hour contracts, using food banks social Care, the NHS in crisis, putting up the retirement age, public sector workers held to 1% annual pay rise while inflation is three times that. Schools asking parents for money to fund their education, always being told by politicians and the media there is no money. But hang on we can find the money to bomb Syria, build multi billion trident submarines and aircraft carriers. Why?, for our defence I am told bullshit! I know what I would like my taxes spent on and its not wasteful and useless armaments.
So your answer is to cut more well paid jobs and turn Barrow into a total unemployment wasteland like so many other northern towns where industries were sacrificed 'to save money'. Now remind me how that policy has worked up till now? Or maybe you think it would be different this time and the money saved would not be used to cut taxes for the super rich individuals and multinational corporations."
Not to mention the circa 600 companies also involved in the supply chain, most of which are UK companies employing UK nationals on this programme. The job losses across the country would be massive.
So many people complain about Great Britain losing industries, cutting jobs, and the loss of engineering capabilites, and then go and moan about the government investing in these companies, you can't have it both ways.
Ginger |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think to answer your statement on the economic benefit of armaments spending and the impact on job, I would be all for an government inquiry into the costs benefit of armaments expenditure. I'm pretty sure thst if this money was invested in civil projects the total of jobs created and benefits to the community would far outweigh those created by the defence contractors. I doubt if we will get that inquiry on this as most of the directors of these defence contractors are ex MPs, and Admirals, air force commodores, brigadier generals, and have a vested interest in keeping the defence gravy train going. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think to answer your statement on the economic benefit of armaments spending and the impact on job, I would be all for an government inquiry into the costs benefit of armaments expenditure. I'm pretty sure thst if this money was invested in civil projects the total of jobs created and benefits to the community would far outweigh those created by the defence contractors. I doubt if we will get that inquiry on this as most of the directors of these defence contractors are ex MPs, and Admirals, air force commodores, brigadier generals, and have a vested interest in keeping the defence gravy train going."
The numbers are well known...
To keep one teeth arms soldier, sailor or airman operational it averages out as requiring 10 administration and support personnel and to keep one member of the armed forces clothed, fed, equipped and armed takes 10 civilian jobs. Of course since Thatcher decided to open UK military procurement to non British companies and take the lowest bid 'to save money' we have lost the Royal Ordnance Factories and surprisingly enough when we no longer had the facilities or capability to manufacture our own prices have increased exponentially, and the money flows out of the UK...
Fantastic economics if you move from government into the multinational corporations that are raping our country, but not if it is your job has just been exported abroad.
The sad fact is there are always people like you who think cutting is the way to become more prosperous and refuse to admit that every round of cuts makes the vast majority of us poorer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I doubt we'll ever agree, enjoy your weapons, just a pity we all have to pay for this useless activity instead of something more socially useful."
I'm sure you are right. But let me ask you two questions: How did running down allied armed forces in Europe and the USA to reduce costs due to the great depression while Germany under the leadership of a megalomaniac with an expansionist agenda during the 30's work out?
Do you see any similarity between the 30's and the present day? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In 1940 George Orwell said that generals always prepare for the last war, not the next one. The same goes for admirals."
George Orwell was wrong...
If he had said most generals prepare for the last war he would have been right. The fact that the nature and tactics of war evolve proves it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
